Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections Nominations with objections Gorkon I would like to nominate the article Gorkon as a FA. There is an extensive amount of Background information, providing much detail on the development of the character and views on the character. I learned some stuff by reading it. I also feel the canon part of the article covers the character well and also succinct. Even if this does not succeed, kudos to Defiant for his work.--31dot 20:15, September 23, 2011 (UTC) :*'Support' for reasons as given in the pearreview--Sennim 00:59, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for the comments, guys. This was actually an article that, surprisingly, turned out better than I had originally expected. I tried to put in about as much effort into the bg info sections of the Martia and Rura Penthe articles. But I thought the bg info for this one, Gorkon, turned out the best (and is, moreover, as complete as possible). I also really like the in-universe and the apocrypha sections (both of which, for the most part, I did not write), the former of which (I feel) is admirably concise. --Defiant 11:30, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :*'Support'. Well written and researched. Tom 11:53, September 24, 2011 (UTC) :*'Oppose'. Must say I don't see what all the fuss is about. It's far from the perfect article, which the featured article criteria enjoin us to approach. I specifically object to: ::*'The lead'. Where the hell is it? It's buried deeeeeeeep in the final paragraph, really. As things stand the lead ends with a sentence about him owning a bone cane and a necklace? That's not lead-worthy. The lead ends with no clear definition of the article's subject if it ends with the fashion accessories he possesses! What's critical about this character is the impact of his murder upon the Khitomer Conference, and the resulting Accords. He's a Big Damn Deal, and the lead fritters that away on . . . jewelry. I think the lead should end with something along the lines of: ::::The circumstances of Gorkon's death directly lead to a frosty climate between the United Federation of Planets and the Klingon Empire at the Khitomer Conference. Only a full explanation of the conspiracy behind his murder allowed for the successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords. ::*'The hugely long sentences in graf 3'. This article has only really been heavily edited since mid-August. I don't think that's quite enough time to have worked out its grammatical kinks. As the "perfect article" guidelines make clear, a well-written article has gone through "many, many revisions". We're only talking about 3 dozen revisions since serious attention has been paid to the article. A sure sign of the article's lack of maturity can be found in the third paragraph, which opens with three huge sentences that are, in my opinion, only just shy of run-on sentences. The first clear sentence in the last paragraph is: ::::After Kronos One had restored power, Captain Kirk and Doctor Leonard McCoy beamed aboard to provide medical assistance. :::Before this point, it's parenthetical followed by dependent clause. I think the main problem of those first three sentences is they've lost sight of what the article is about. It's about Gorkon. It's not about the experimental Bird-of-Prey. I'd suggest something a bit snappier: ::::After dinner, Gorkon returned to Kronos One. It was thereafter disabled by two photon torpedos, appearing to originate from Enterprise. Two assassins, their faces obscured, then beamed over from Kirk's ship. They moved wordlessly through Kronos One, which was crippled by a lack of artificial gravity. This condition made it easy for them, equipped with gravity boots, to systematically kill Klingons en route to the Chancellor. Indeed, they were able to easily wound a floating and defenseless Gorkon with a fatal phaser shot to the chest. :::Remember, the "perfect article" guidelines tell us that "long, rambling sentences should be avoided". ::*'The whole article needs to be copyedited for overlong sentences and fairly useless parentheticals.' If it's important to note that he called the future "the undiscovered country", then that shouldn't be in parentheses. Do we need to know that Azetbur inherited his necklace? Really? ::*'Redlinks'. I'm a little concerned that the background section of the article contains redlinks. It's not a specific disqualifier given in any guidelines. But the first thing I thought when I read the background section was, "If you're gonna quote from production personnel, those people should have articles here." So, I don't know if that's a deal-breaker for FA status, but it's certainly something that needs correction at some point. ::*'Organisation of background section'. The background section feels disorganised, to me. We're told by the "perfect article" guidelines that "sections should almost always be used to divide the material into appropriate parts", and the "background" section feels like it needs sub-sections. As it is, the final paragraphs feel like little more than bullet points. I almost feel like the information should be divided into "pre-production", "production", and "after release", just to give the information some form. Little bits, like the identity of Warner's stunt double, are getting a bit lost in the mix. ::*'USS Gorkon'. Should this only be in the "background" section? It's really buried deep in that text. Couldn't it also be mentioned in the in-universe section, with a phrase like, "The 24th century Federation vessel, USS Gorkon, was ostensibly named in his honor". I dunno, maybe even that's too conjectural, but it just seems weird not to mention the in-universe existence of a ship of the same name. Even pulling it up into the disambig note would give readers a better chance of finding this little nugget of in-universe info. ::*'Is this article actually stable?' I throw that question out there, because it's one of the basic concepts of the featured article criteria. We're told that "the article content should not have changed significantly within the last few weeks" — but that precisely describes this article. Again, its current round of revisions only began about six weeks ago. Maybe it's fine, I dunno. But it's worth asking the question, "how many weeks are a few"? And this is really my big objection to the whole nomination. It feels like we're giving the nod to one editor's recent work on the thing. His revisions, while impressive, deserve to sit with the community for a big longer and age a bit. I feel like the article could be massively improved if more people joined in. ::: 15:02: Fri 30 Sep 2011 A few comments: *Redlinks should not be a disqualifier. The fact that another article has not been created doesn't mean this one is bad. The quotes come from the given sources, not the person themselves, so their article or a lack thereof is irrelevant. *A "few" is three. It does not need to sit for months to be "stable", nor is it required to have contributions from many people. That's not to say there shouldn't be, but the fact one person has done a lot of work should not disqualify this article. Nothing has prevented you from doing so before now; there was a peer review which few commented on. *The Background section is short enough, that I feel it doesn't need to be subdivided. Doing so would break it up too much. *I disagree that there are too many "hugely long sentences". I may have more comments later.--31dot 15:19, September 30, 2011 (UTC) :I may have done a lot of work on it, but I'm certainly not the only one. Even the bg info section, which I worked the most on, benefited from the input of editors such as TrekFan (who helpfully notified me that there was a StarTrek.com page from which further info could be taken) and Cleanse (who contributed the citation for the TNG info). I do believe that any connection between the ship and the character named Gorkon is not canonical, having not been established on-screen; historically, there were multiple Klingons with the name Duras and Worf – how do we know the same wasn't true of Gorkon?! --Defiant 15:30, September 30, 2011 (UTC) :I agree with the points 31dot has succinctly made. Also, an error you repeatedly seem to make, CzechOut, is thinking that this article should have the same perspective as the movie does. The film makes a big deal out of "the undiscovered country" line, but how do we know it was actually all that important in his life? The same is true of his death and its effects; as commented upon in one of the bg notes, his life was much vaster than just that single event. Your comment about the jewelry is acceptable, though, and one of the points that Sennim made during the peer review, so I've made that minor change. --Defiant 16:00, September 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Thanks for your responses. I feel we're making some headway. ::Let me just focus initially, though, on the matter of the lead for the moment. All you've done in your recent change is to clip away the one sentence about the jewelry and move it to the end. Fine, that's an improvement, but you're still nowhere close to the "perfect article". Leads need to clearly define the article's subject and give a sense of the direction the article will take. All your lead says now is that he was the leader of the High Council in a particular year. The bulk of the article is, however, about his death. You say there's a wider life, and of course there must be. But we don't know any of it canonically. There are hundreds of High Council leaders about whom we know nothing — not even a name. But the entire reason we know about Gorkon is because he tried to broker a peace with the Federation, was killed for it, and the peace negotiations he initiated concluded only when his murder was solved. That should be in the lead, because that, for all practical purposes, defines Gorkon. As the "perfect article" guidelines make clear, leads need to "define the article's subject". It is no kind of definition to say merely that "Gorkon was the leader of the High Council in the year XXXX". ::Other points I'm willing to consider asked and answered at this point: ::*'Redlinks.' Fine, it's not specifically enumerated as an FA barrier in policy, so if you're happy to let those go, I'll drop the objection. ::*'Stability of article. Not sure where 31dot is getting the 3 week thing from, but, fine, I'll accept it as an unwritten, common-sense kinda rule. it was just a question arising from ill-defined policy. ::Things that still worry me: ::*'Wide range of editors'. I certainly accept there were other people along the way. But it's not really an example of a hugely collaborative article, is it? If we take Defiant's edits out of the picture, would there actually be an FA nom on the table? I somehow doubt it. After all, there wasn't one at any other stage of the article's development. Also, I think 31dot is not representing policy correctly when he says "nor is it required to have contributions from many people". The "perfect article" guidelines flatly state that perfect articles include "contributions from many members". I'm not seeing that many members since 14 August, and I'm definitely not seeing revisions where one person actively edits the language choices of the person who came before. Most of what's been done since August has been in the nature of adding on new information — which is great! — rather than collaboration over the existing material — which is equally helpful. ::*'Long sentences.' Just saying "I don't agree that there are long sentences" doesn't make them go away. Again, this isn't just a stylistic preference on my part. It's something which is specifically in the policy that governs this process. Short, clear, interesting sentences are desired in FAs. ::*'Organisation of background section'. A featured article is an example of how things should be done in other articles. I don't think we want to be telling other editors, "Just stick the information anywhere". That's really what's happening in this background section, especially when you match the additions to the article history. It's clear that ThomasHL just stuck the auction info and the stunt double in wherever he felt appropriate. There was no subsequent effort to organise his additions. From a reader's perspective the background section is just one long list of . . . stuff. Dividing into a section about pre-production or "character concept", one about production, and one about stuff that happened after the film's premiere, would focus the background information better. Now, I realise none of that is in any MA format guideline. But it would make it more logically organised — and that is definitely a part of the FA criteria. ::Things not understood from the above responses ::*'The suggestion that because I didn't participate in the peer review means I can't now raise objections at the FA nom.' You're gonna have to provide a policy reference for that one, I'm afraid. I'm not in any sense "late", by the rules of the FA nom process. Sorry if you thought this nomination was going to go through "on the nod" and you're now upset to find someone has genuine problems with the article. ::*'"Also, an error you repeatedly seem to make, CzechOut, is thinking that this article should have the same perspective as the movie does."' Don't even understand what "the same perspective as the movie" means, much less how it could be an "error" to stick to canon. Perhaps you could amplify that point a little more? ::*'USS Gorkon'. Yeah, fine, not canonically established. (But I still think it's logically unlikely to be another Gorkon on a Federation ship hull. If it were a Klingon ship, you'd have more of a point.) Still, I think it should be on the dab note. After all if you type in "Enterprise" to the search bar, you get a dab page. Typing in "Gorkon" gives you the character, and you have to go all the way down the page to a nested comment to find out there is such a thing as the USS Gorkon. A link to USS Gorkon should definitely be at the top of this article, in the dab note. People are much more likely to be looking for something with the same name than they are something that merely has [[Gorgan|a similar name]]. ::: 19:35: Fri 30 Sep 2011 My comments: *I did not say that because you did not post in the peer review that means you cannot comment now; I was trying to say that there was ample opportunity for you and others to contribute, both during the peer review and beforehand- so your criticism that not enough people participated is not well founded. There have been many chances that users did not avail themselves of and it is unfair for them to come along now and state that not enough people participated. Yes, many contributors is helpful and desired- but it would be irresponsible to let good articles sit around simply because many people did not work on them. The last few FA nominations(successful and not) were worked on pretty much by one person. *I'm really not seeing any long sentences here that take away from the article- perhaps that is just my stylistic preference talking. *There is such a thing as over-organizing and over-subdividing an article, and I feel doing so here would be too much. If you have issues with placement of information it can certainly be moved around. --31dot 01:18, October 1, 2011 (UTC) :But the placement of info follows a logical progression, so I don't really see that happening. I very much wish you'd voiced an opinion during the peer review, CzechOut; it now seems much more uncertain whether your changes are supported/opposed by community consensus, as they weren't made/suggested during that period of review – just seems really a bit unfair of you to raise all these points now, following the peer review, as so much work has gone into this (both from myself and from others, but mostly the latter). I was actually considering submitting this for peer review before working on the bg info but, since I realized I could add substantially more to the bg info section, I did so. Now, I'm left wondering... what the heck do I do with it now(?), since it's not only unclear how supported/opposed your points are, but also even making the changes you've suggested would probably constitute the article being unstable. Since this could go on basically ad infinitum (i.e. editors not contributing to a peer review but then raising multiple opposing points in the FA nomination process, necessitating another peer review that another editor doesn't contribute to but then raises multiple opposing points in the FA nomination process, necessitating yet another peer review, etc., etc.), I think there should be some policy against this. --Defiant 03:29, October 1, 2011 (UTC) :My problem with the suggested bg info subsection headings is that they're not very relevant to this character article. "Pre-production", "production", and "after release" all relate to the film itself, but something much more relevant to the character would be a lot better. Even then, however, I highly doubt all the notes can fit under headings, since there's plenty of stand-alone ones (like the aforementioned note, re: perspective). I also agree with 31dot's point that "There is such a thing as over-organizing and over-subdividing an article, and I feel doing so here would be too much." --Defiant 10:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :Defining Gorkon, in the lead, as simply a Chancellor of the Klingon Empire doesn't stray from canon and Gorkon was more than what the film depicted him as, a fact you've already admitted, CzechOut. Sticking too rigidly to canon for in-universe info produces articles that read too much like episode/film summaries. Plus, having info about his death in two different areas of the article runs the risk of over-repeating the information. All in all, the lead should have the least amount of historical/time-based info as possible, while the date of 2293 gives it perspective, defining it to one particular era. --Defiant 11:21, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :::New thoughts popping up in the FA process instead of in the preceding PR process is unfortunate, but can't really be helped unless we merge both processes (and stop calling the result a superlative like "best article we have"). Just creating a policy for this exact circumstance won't work - we can't simply exclude contributors from the second process just because they've missed the first one, and still call the resulting nomination one "by the community". What you can (and probably should) do now is to work on the article to make it a better one, and eventually nominate it again - after some time, to allow the article to become stable again. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :::For what it's worth, I share the opinion that some of the sentences (mostly in the assassination paragraph) are too long. On top of that, I don't like the use of "NOTOC" - there are more than enough subsections in the Appendices section that should be accessible via a TOC. If the auto-position of the TOC is a concern, this should be solved by forcing the TOC to a specific position, or by adding section headers to the in-universe part. Also, and this is just small thing, I'm not sure whether we should have Klingon transcriptions ("thlIngan hol: XYZ") in our articles - is that even canon? -- Cid Highwind 13:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC) Re the transcriptions- they are a lot of them around, and I'm not sure where they come from if not from the Klingon Dictionary(or other sources). Should probably be discussed somewhere.--31dot 14:46, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :::Done: Forum:Klingon translations. -- Cid Highwind 15:19, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :Regarding the "NOTOC" issue, it's a little bit above my head, the one (and only) uncertain technical detail for me being that I'm not quite sure how to "force" the TOC to a specific location. I think possibly adding a section heading to the in-universe area may be a good idea, but I'm not sure what we could call it. I agree with the plan of action being that we continue to work on this article, trying to make it more suitable for as many users as possible (a so-called "better" article). To this end, I've inserted the experimental subsections into the bg info area as well as the disambig lk to . --Defiant 21:17, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :::The TOC can be forced to a specific position using __TOC__ at that position. That should be the last resort though, adding a good in-universe section header would be better. -- Cid Highwind 21:47, October 2, 2011 (UTC) :I agree. Still, thanks for the info. :) Is there a good in-universe header we can use? --Defiant 10:23, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :Update – as one can see from the page, I selected "biographical record" for the in-universe portion. I'd be interested to ascertain whether there are any objections to the page now (aside from the obvious lack of stability)? --Defiant 15:28, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :::The top of the article looks very "chaotic" now - first there are two disambiguation notes, then a single sentence, then a TOC and a section header, then another sentence, then a big background note (very early in the article). Compare that to, for example, Gowron, which looks much cleaner. My suggestion would be to make the initial sentence a proper paragraph of 3-4 sentences, and move the bgnote back to its Appendices subsection (and perhaps the relatively unimportant "cane&necklace" info to a less prominent place). -- Cid Highwind 16:01, October 3, 2011 (UTC) ::::I tend to agree with Cid on this one for aethetics--Sennim 17:12, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :Thanks for the input, guys. The difficulty seems to be reconciling the chronological-minded heading with the placement of the info about his cane & necklace, without taking the reader out of the time-based arrangement of that in-universe section. Would someone else like to have a go? --Defiant 18:09, October 3, 2011 (UTC) :Evidently not. I made the changes helpfully suggested by Cid. :) Further comments would be more than welcome. --Defiant 11:02, October 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::Ah, me like. One last point, running the risk of sounding peevish, forgive me for that, I still think aesthetics would be improved if the very first sentence is somewhat enlarged by an additional comment like "He was in this capacity noted for the peace overtures he made to the Federation" or wordings as you deem fit...A short sentence as it is now, seems a bit lost between the amb. notes and the TOC...My two cents..--Sennim 11:31, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :I've tried to act on this advice, adding the sentence, "In this capacity, he was noted for making peace overtures to the United Federation of Planets that, following his death, led to an historic cessation of hostilities between that organization and the Klingon Empire." However, I'm not entirely sure of the accurateness of the latter part of that sentence. If "an historic cessation of hostilities" is not technically what Gorkon's peace overtures did achieve or if someone can phrase better what they did lead to, I'd be more than happy to change it. --Defiant 12:45, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :I've now also taken care of the issue regarding red links. Any more problems with the article and/or ways to improve it? --Defiant 14:26, October 4, 2011 (UTC) ::::You're right insofar that we don't really know what's exactly happened between IV and TNG, (since it can be inferred that it must have been a long drawn-out process with ups and downs), but in my opinion that can be fixed by adding "eventually" before led to an... as I think that Gorkon's efforts were the first serious such overtures...--Sennim 14:29, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :Done. --Defiant 14:33, October 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Wow. This article has really come along. The two big things I see outstanding are the rather awkward dab note — I'd agree with those upthread who called it "chaotic" — and still that pesky lead. :::Disambig first. Do we really need to put each dab note on its own line? Can't it be something like: ::::You may be looking for the Federation starship of the same name or the species of a similar name. :::That would seem much more compact and elegant to me, but maybe that falls foul of the MOS. Not sure. :::And now the lead. It's better — way better. But I think the solution to Defiant's stated difficulties above is simply greater specificity. My suggestion would be: don't try to characterise; do report the facts. ::::Gorkon was the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council in 2293. He notably pursued peaceful relations with the United Federation of Planets, but was murdered just prior to the start of the Khitomer Conference. The circumstances of Gorkon's death directly lead to a frosty climate between the Federation and the Klingon Empire at that conference. Only a full explanation of the conspiracy behind his murder allowed for the successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords, which normalized relations between the two governments after years of hostility. ::: 06:04: Wed 12 Oct 2011 :To me, that seems too much like an essay; I was under the impression that the lead was meant to be sort of a summarized, succinct introduction to the article. --Defiant 12:24, October 12, 2011 (UTC) :The proposed paragraph is also guilty of assuming foreknowledge. I'd be more inclined to accept something like the following: :::Gorkon was the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council in 2293. He notably pursued peaceful relations with the United Federation of Planets, but was murdered just prior to the start of the Khitomer Conference. Only a full explanation of a conspiracy behind his murder allowed for successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords, which normalized relations between the two governments after years of hostility. :As for the disambig, I agree that it's messy. Might a disambiguation page be in order, I wonder(?) --Defiant 13:02, October 12, 2011 (UTC) :I've now changed the disambig & lead. The proposed paragraph only specified one of the "two governments", so I added a reference (and link) to the Klingon Empire. I also tried to retain another element of the previous version (aside from the first sentence) by starting the second sentence with "In this capacity...." I'm still unsure about the disambig. Would the creation of a disambig page be an appropriate measure, or is it fine as it currently is? --Defiant 13:47, October 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Someone's changed the disambig quite nicely, I think. That's two more objections out of the way, as far as I'm concerned. (I guess we're kinda ignoring the strict letter of the FA nom process by keeping this listed well after it should have been removed, but that's cool by me. I want to get it to the point where it can be featured.) 03:27: Thu 13 Oct 2011 :::::Objecting to this article based to the format of the disambiguation templates is not a valid reason, since it has nothing to do with just this article. If you wish to discuss the purposed solution to the current format, you can do so here. - 08:36, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :I agree. Whichever method is used for the disambig is too unrelated to this specific article, CzechOut; that's it's own issue. Thanks for your input regarding the disambig method, Archduk. --Defiant 08:43, October 13, 2011 (UTC) ::I still think the term "eventually" should be added, as the text stands now before normalized relations (...), for the reasons I've stated that we don't really know what happened between VI and TNG ( comes to mind as a period when detente was in a slump), just a thought--Sennim 15:20, October 13, 2011 (UTC) :No problem, Sennim. :) That addition has now been made. --Defiant 18:40, October 17, 2011 (UTC) ::Support, Defiant has worked hard to address all issues raised, and I like the article as it now stands--Sennim 11:48, October 19, 2011 (UTC) Comment. CzechOut, there is no hard time limit on nominations. They can be resolved after seven days of inactivity, but it is not required. If there was no work going on to improve the article, then sure- but there was in this case.--31dot 12:05, October 19, 2011 (UTC) :::For what it's worth, I think that "can be resolved" should be understood as "generally, they really should be resolved" after such time of inactivity, so that clearly unsuccessful nominations aren't kept alive artificially - in which case, the 8-day long inactivity between October 4 and 12 would have led to a negative resolve just like CzechOut hinted at. While keeping this one probably is acceptable as long as it doesn't become the norm, I see that there are still unresolved objections and, on top of that (and unless I counted wrong), still not enough votes overall to consider this nomination successful - after 27 days and severe changes which make this article somewhat "unstable"! Perhaps it would be better to remove this nomination for now and renominate it later. If that doesn't happen, it would make this a very weak "best article" in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 12:40, October 19, 2011 (UTC) Well, I think our opinions on this issue relate to the larger issue of about how much "issue-resolving" is permitted within the context of an FA discussion(the idea of "objections being resolved" seems to conflict with "article must be stable"- which has been brought up before- and should be part of a larger revamping of the entire FA process which you've touched on before and I think is worth discussing.--31dot 13:23, October 19, 2011 (UTC)